Ah, Charles. Resist you much.

It's interesting that in your opinion, "[l]iturgy in the west degraded after the fall of Rome..."

Others--such as the Benedictines, Franciscans, and Dominicans, might disagree.

What "ages?" The "Mass of the Ages" goes back to the Council of Trent and not much more than that. It has some elements that survived from the authentic Roman liturgies, but much of it dates no earlier than Trent.

Where did you get that information? How do you know that the so-called "Tridentine Mass" or as we know it now, the Extraordinary Form, was effectively created by the Council of Trent, much as the Mass of Paul VI, the "Novus Ordo" or as we know it now, the Ordinary Form, was created by the Consilium Group of the Second Vatican Council?

Every source that I have ever consulted has maintained and agreed that the Council of Trent did not create a new rite of Mass, but codified and defined for all time, the Latin Rite of Mass.

There is no Mass of the Ages. That's a romantic and somewhat melodramatic invention by certain writers of the 19th century.

Please defend this statement. Again, where did you get that information? How do you know that the term "Mass of the Ages" was invented by "certain writers of the 19th century?" Who were these "certain writers," and where and when did they invent the term?

I think Pius V was responsible for the "codification" of the liturgy. I believe I read somewhere that it was a similar deal to Paul VI making revisions, in that it was left up to the pope. But it seems clear to me that the mass had fragmented and was no longer standard from place to place, so the "codification" was necessary to produce a standard version.

Mass of the ages, etc. I am thinking of Faber, Fortescue, et al for such things as "Mass of the Ages," "The most beautiful thing this side of heaven," and other over-the-top statements. We have writers in our own day who write similar things.

I have heard the old mass called the "Gregorian" rite, even though good pope Gregory might not have recognized it. Successive popes after Pius V regularly tinkered with the missal, adding prayers, deleting prayers, removing feast days, adding them back, etc. This continued until 1962 which effectively stopped changes to the Gregorian/Latin/Tridentine/Traditional rite. Now we have Ordinary and Extraordinary mass, different rites but the same mass which is about as mysterious and confusing as the Trinity. Sheesh!

What I roll my eyes about is people who think the Latin mass came down from heaven itself in its current form. Did not! It has been tinkered with and revised continuously over the centuries. Of course, if we allow that it has changed over time, how can the Trads continue to be holier than thou? The current mass is bad since it was changed, but don't mention that the same happened to the Latin rite over time. Shhhhh! We don't talk about that!!

Lengthy, but highly interesting. A simple Google search reveals:

"Pius V's work in severely reducing the number of feasts in the Roman Calendar (see this comparison) was very soon further undone by his successors. Feasts that he had abolished, such as those of the Presentation of Mary, Saint Anne and Saint Anthony of Padua, were restored even before Clement VIII's 1604 typical edition of the Missal was issued."

"After Pius V's original Tridentine Roman Missal, the first new typical edition was promulgated in 1604 by Pope Clement VIII, who in 1592 had issued a revised edition of the Vulgate. The Bible texts in the Missal of Pope Pius V did not correspond exactly to the new Vulgate, and so Clement edited and revised Pope Pius V's Missal, making alterations both in the scriptural texts and in other matters. He abolished some prayers that the 1570 Missal obliged the priest to say on entering the church; shortened the two prayers to be said after the Confiteor; directed that the words "Haec quotiescumque feceritis, in meam memoriam facietis" should not be said while displaying the chalice to the people after the consecration, but before doing so; inserted directions at several points of the Canon that the priest was to pronounce the words inaudibly; suppressed the rule that, at High Mass, the priest, even if not a bishop, was to give the final blessing with three signs of the cross; and rewrote the rubrics, introducing, for instance, the ringing of a small bell"

"The next typical edition was issued in 1634, when Pope Urban VIII made another general revision of the Roman Missal.[36]"

"There was no further typical edition until that of Pope Leo XIII in 1884.[37] It introduced only minor changes, not profound enough to merit having the papal bull of its promulgation included in the Missal, as the bulls of 1604 and 1634 were."

"In 1911, with the bull Divino Afflatu,[38] Pope Pius X made significant changes in the rubrics. He died in 1914, so it fell to his successor Pope Benedict XV to issue a new typical edition incorporating his changes. This 1920 edition included a new section headed: "Additions and Changes in the Rubrics of the Missal in accordance with the Bull Divino afflatu and the Subsequent Decrees of the Sacred Congregation of Rites". This additional section was almost as long as the previous section on the "General Rubrics of the Missal", which continued to be printed unchanged."

"Pope Pius XII radically revised the Palm Sunday and Easter Triduum liturgy, suppressed many vigils and octaves and made other alterations in the calendar (see General Roman Calendar of Pope Pius XII), reforms that were completed in Pope John XXIII's 1960 Code of Rubrics, which were incorporated in the final 1962 typical edition of the Tridentine Missal, replacing both Pius X's "Additions and Changes in the Rubrics of the Missal" and the earlier "General Rubrics of the Missal."

"The Roman Missal issued by Pope John XXIII in 1962 differed from earlier editions in a number of ways.

It incorporated the change made by John XXIII in 1962, when he inserted into the canon of the Mass the name of Saint Joseph, the first change for centuries in the canon of the Mass.[40]

It incorporated major changes that Pope Pius XII made in 1955 in the liturgy of Palm Sunday and the Easter Triduum. These included:
Abolition of the ceremonies whereby the blessing of palms on Palm Sunday resembled a Mass, with Epistle, Gospel, Preface and Sanctus; suppression of the knocking three times on the closed doors before returning to the church after the blessing and distribution of the palms; omission of the prayers at the foot of the altar and of the Last Gospel.

On Holy Thursday the washing of feet was incorporated into the Mass instead of being an independent ceremony; if done by a bishop, 12 men, not 13, had their feet washed; the Mass itself was said in the evening instead of the morning and some of its prayers were removed or altered.

On Good Friday, elements that suggested the usual practices of the Mass were removed: the sacred ministers began the liturgy in alb and (for celebrant and deacon) black stoles, rather than respectively in black chasuble, dalmatic, and tunicle, as per a typical Mass; the sacred ministers donned their vestments (without maniples) only for the Solemn Intercessions, in which the celebrant wore a cope instead of a chasuble, and removed them for the adoration of the Cross; the sacred ministers changed to violet vestments (again, without maniples) for the distribution of Holy Communion; "Let us pray. Let us kneel. Arise" was added at the prayer for the Jews, and the adjective perfidis was removed (see Good Friday Prayer for the Jews); an afternoon Communion Service replaced the morning Mass of the Presanctified, at which the priest alone received the earlier-consecrated host, and drank unconsecrated wine into which a small portion of the consecrated host had been put.

The Easter Vigil was moved from Holy Saturday morning to the following nighttime; the use of a triple candle was abolished and other changes were made both to the initial ceremonies centred on the Paschal Candle and to other parts, such as the reduction from twelve to four of the prophecies read, and the introduction of a "renewal of baptismal promises" for the laity (notable for being the first time since the codification of the Missal of Pope Pius V that the vernacular was permitted to be used in such a manner).
It incorporated the rubrical changes made by Pope Pius XII's 1955 decree Cum nostra, which included:

Vigils were abolished except those of Easter, Christmas, Ascension, Pentecost, Saints Peter and Paul, Saint John the Baptist, and Saint Lawrence;
all octaves were abolished except those of Easter, Christmas and Pentecost;
no more than three collects were to be said at low Mass and one at solemn Mass.

Its calendar incorporated both the changes made by Pope Pius XII in 1955 (General Roman Calendar of Pope Pius XII) and those introduced by Pope John XXIII himself with his 1960 Code of Rubrics (General Roman Calendar of 1960). These included:
suppression of the "Solemnity of Saint Joseph, Spouse of the Blessed Virgin Mary" (Wednesday after the second Sunday after Easter) and its replacement by the feast of "Saint Joseph the Worker" (1 May);
removal of some duplicate feasts that appeared twice in earlier versions of the calendar, namely, the Chair of Saint Peter at Rome (18 January), the Finding of the Holy Cross (3 May), Saint John before the Latin Gate (6 May), the Apparition of Saint Michael (8 May), Saint Peter in Chains (1 August), and the Invention of the Relics of Saint Stephen (3 August);
addition of feasts such as that of the Queenship of Mary (31 May).

It replaced the Roman Missal's introductory sections, Rubricae generales Missalis (General Rubrics of the Missal) and Additiones et variationes in rubricis Missalis ad normam Bullae "Divino afflatu" et subsequentium S.R.C. Decretorum (Additions and alterations to the Rubrics of the Missal in line with the Bull Divino afflatu and the subsequent decrees of the Sacred Congregation of Rites), with the text of the General Rubrics and the General Rubrics of the Roman Missal parts of the 1960 Code of Rubrics.

Pope Benedict XVI authorized, under certain conditions, continued use of this 1962 edition of the Roman Missal as an extraordinary form of the Roman Rite,[41] alongside the later form, introduced in 1970, which is now the normal or ordinary form.[42] Pre-1962 forms of the Roman Rite, which some individuals and groups employ,[43] are not authorized for liturgical use."

Charles, what your quote describes are minor tweaks (up until the 1955 revisions of Holy Week.) Deleting, then adding feasts? Changing a few words in the shriving?

Really! IS OUTRAGE!!

Compare when the NO's authors deleted almost every word of the Offertory, deleted all of the prayers at the foot of the altar, deleted the Last Gospel....

You can do better than that.

But in all those centuries, there is nothing about a change to the vernacular.
On the contrary, the Council of Trent solemnly declared
:
Canon 7. If anyone says that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs which the Catholic Church uses in the celebration of masses, are incentives to impiety rather than stimulants to piety, let him be anathema.

Canon 9. If anyone says that the rite of the Roman Church, according to which a part of the canon and the words of consecration are pronounced in a low tone, is to be condemned; or that the mass ought to be celebrated in the vernacular tongue only; or that water ought not to be mixed with the wine that is to be offered in the chalice because it is contrary to the institution of Christ, let him be anathema.

Trent continued to respect the Mass as a gift from God, not something to be tampered with to suit colloquial whims or fantasies of the times. It is also interesting how the Protestant Reformers dabbled in archeologism, for instance in the mixing of water with the wine.

I wonder if a compromise could be aimed for, to have the synaxis in the vernacular, but from the offertory onwards in Latin also accompanied by the priest facing the crucifix at the apse, that is, ad orientem, and also in a low voice instead of all this distruptive babbling going on at the altar. But even that is too much for very many, especially those who understand the Mass as nothing more than a community meal. The Church is indeed in crisis, with huge swaths in an informal schism.

As I have said, Latin (which i love), is not a panacea to fix this problem, but it can't be the sole reason for this problem, not after fifty years, when most of the people who actually lived before the council are dead.

Salieri's bold point seems to be beside the issue. As the author of the thread, I'd like to refocus upon the crux of "these problems." I rather regard FCAP as an appropriately out-moded concept if that is "this problem." It seems in retrospect to be an alien notion grafted upon a time-honored essential rite. To speak in the vulgar tongue, FCAP boils down to "You vill zing und you vill like it!" Even if the tongue employed is Latin, that attitude is wrong-headed.
I, for one, have never called for the use of Latin as a solution to the pandemic of problems presaged by the good cardinal in 1962. But perhaps the Paraclete moves in an ironic, as well as mysterious, way; could the presumed repast of the vernacular have been predestined to decline into fast food, so that the full menu and compliment of the Usus Antiquior could again seek its own destiny? (Yeah, I know that's a bit dramatic.)

I don’t know how liturgies dating from time immemorial can be replaced entirely when they are clearly protected by the provisions of Quo primum;

If a pope has the authority to promulgate Quo primum, another pope has equal authority to repeal or replace it. Pius V had no more authority than any of his successors.

I wonder if a compromise could be aimed for, to have the synaxis in the vernacular, but from the offertory onwards in Latin also accompanied by the priest facing the crucifix at the apse, that is, ad orientem, and also in a low voice instead of all this distruptive babbling going on at the altar. But even that is too much for very many, especially those who understand the Mass as nothing more than a community meal. The Church is indeed in crisis, with huge swaths in an informal schism.

I could go for that. However, even the post-Vatican II popes have squandered away so much of their authority, hardly anyone would listen to them if such a compromise were decreed. You will never hear such a compromise from the current pope.

It appeared the reformers wanted to get away from the sacrificial aspects and focus on the meal aspects of the mass. I remember a church official telling me that was the reason the new altar was shaped like a table. The schism you mention does exist.

I believe, at the time of the Council, he realized he could only go so far without touching off a push-back from the bishops. A few years later, order had fallen apart to the degree he could legislate anything he wished and get away with it. By then, all the modernists had come out of the woodwork.

I can't believe there is actually a movement to canonize Paul VI. The man was a holy fool who was incapable of seeing the logical consequences of his actions.

So, some thoughts, after all of this discussion, and trying, probably unsuccessfully to get back to Melo's original question.

The principal problem with vernacular liturgy is that the vernacular is always changing. It changes for what I would call basic linguistic reasons (e.g. things as simple as changes and standardization of spelling and punctuation), and for political and cultural reasons, and even politically correct reasons.

The BCP went through a few revisions before it was, pardon the term, "canonized" in 1662: IIRC the 1662 BCP is still the only lawful one for use in Britain. However, the Prayer Book was revised in the US after the Revolution, again in the 19th Century, in 1928, and then again in the 1970s, and I'm sure it shall be revised again.

The same is true of the Catholic Liturgy: Did we forget that we just received a new translation of the Sacramentary (it isn't a Missal, since, by definition, a Missal contains all the texts for the Mass, including the readings, since MR3 only contains the part of the priest (and deacon) that are needed for the sacrament, it is technically a Sacramentary--even in the Latin Typical Edition)? What was considered vernacular in 1971 was considered outdated and in need of change in 2010, and doubtless this will occur in another few decades when things linguistic, cultural, and political again change the English language and our own "new" translation seems old and outdated. There have also been revisions of the Lectionary, based on ever newer editions of the NAB.

"Cranmerian English" is Not currently vernacular: it was in 1549 when the first Prayer Book was published, or when the Douay Bible was published in 1582-1609 (which book, by the way, was one of the primary sources for what became the Authorized Version of 1611). And it was because of these publications that "Prayer Book English" was more or less set in stone, as Edward, Elizabeth, and James, pretty much did unto Anglican Liturgy what Pius V and his immediate successors did to the Roman Liturgy by creating a "canonized" set of liturgical books and a style of language from which no one (or very few until our recent epoch) veered.

The only way that I can see of salvaging vernacular liturgy in English speaking countries is by doing away with vernacular English, and adopting Prayer Book English as a "canonized" liturgical English. Perhaps this is something that the Ordinariate can help us with.

As to the other things, they miss the point considerably. Anything didactic in the Mass is simply a by-product, yes, even the readings. The Mass, the whole Mass, is the worship of God. Period. Yes, the liturgy does instruct us, but it instructs us first in how to pray, how to offer right worship to God (Lex orandi), and then it instructs us in what we believe (Lex credendi); and this isn't done in a didactic way, it's done simply by letting the liturgy be the liturgy, and the liturgy is NOT a catechism lesson. The liturgy instructs by being the liturgy because the readings and homily aren't the only "didactic" part of the Mass, though there are some liturgists, even eminent ones, that would have us think that. The creed is also didactic, and so are the orations, and the propers, and the ordinary. But it is worship first, then instruction.

And as far as the whole "Mass of Ages" thing: The Tridentine Roman Missal is the Mass of Ages. And so is the Ambrosian Missal, and the Mozarabic Missal, and the Lyonese Missal, and the Sarum Missal, and the Ordinariate Missal, and the Novus Ordo Missae, and (if Charles will forgive me for applying the Western term "Mass" to Divine Liturgy) so are the Liturgies of Chrysostom, Basil, and James of the Byzantine Church, and the Armenian Liturgy, and the Coptic Liturgy, and all the rest of the rites that have been, are, or ever shall be approved for use by the Church. They are all the "Mass of the Ages" because they are the representation of Christ's Sacrifice for our salvation, and the worship His Church gives to Him.

But we can't go backward, only forward. As JP II said, you can't turn back the clock.

Unless the clock is running fast, and gets ahead of itself. In which case we are obliged to fix the clock.

"Cranmerian English" is Not currently vernacular: it was in 1549 when the first Prayer Book was published, or when the Douay Bible was published in 1582-1609 (which book, by the way, was one of the

Is this really true, from a quick read of the history of the English language, Cranmerian English seems to have been the preserve of a London centric elite.

The second edition of the reformed Missale Romanum hasn't been "abolished" yet either.

And the promulgation of the 1962 Missale did not appear in the AAS...

And as far as the whole "Mass of Ages" thing: The Tridentine Roman Missal is the Mass of Ages. And so is the Ambrosian Missal, and the Mozarabic Missal, and the Lyonese Missal, and the Sarum Missal, and the Ordinariate Missal, and the Novus Ordo Missae, and (if Charles will forgive me for applying the Western term "Mass" to Divine Liturgy) so are the Liturgies of Chrysostom, Basil, and James of the Byzantine Church, and the Armenian Liturgy, and the Coptic Liturgy, and all the rest of the rites that have been, are, or ever shall be approved for use by the Church. They are all the "Mass of the Ages" because they are the representation of Christ's Sacrifice for our salvation, and the worship His Church gives to Him.

What he said. They are all the "Mass of the Ages," not restricted to a particular rite.

Unless the clock is running fast, and gets ahead of itself. In which case we are obliged to fix the clock.

Not going to happen. Reading the current climate in Rome, it seems even more inhospitable to being fixed than ever before.

,,, I don't think the 500 years of (good) chant in English is true. I would suggest say 150 years (Oxford movement).

Thomas Tallis and others of his time composed single chants (16th century), presumably for the new Coverdale translation of the Psalter. Double chants appeared and became common (alongside single chants) rather early in the 18th century. it seems likely, therefore, that Anglican chant has thrived for at least 300 years.

Like the Mamas and the Papas said, Charles - "The darkest hour is just before the dawn."

Or is that reference turning back the clock way too far back?

Like the Mamas and the Papas said, Charles - "The darkest hour is just before the dawn."

Or is that reference turning back the clock way too far back?

We can't know. Talk is cheap, and there is plenty of it here. How much any of it can alter reality is another matter. I am a believer in "tipping point," which is a reality. People and organizations can go so far in a wrong direction, their paths and futures become irreversible. I know Christ will keep his promises and the church will survive. Nowhere did Christ say it will endure in the forms in which it has been known in the past, or forms that are known to us.

Two parishes out of how many? I, of course, don't know how many parishes are in that diocese but would expect a large number. Also, what will happen to those programs when the pastors are transferred?

The problem for many of us musicians, however, is: we have this remarkable repertory of liturgical music that was composed for the mediaeval and Tridentine mass. We don't want to loose it! Nor does the Church wish us to.

Either way you spell it, it is true.